linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm, compaction: khugepaged should not give up due to need

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:49:26 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm, compaction: khugepaged should not give up
 due to need_resched()

On 07/29/2014 09:31 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
>> I have a silly question here.
>> Why need_resched() is criteria to stop async compaction?
>> need_resched() is flagged up when time slice runs out or other reasons.
>> It means that we should stop async compaction at arbitrary timing
>> because process can be on compaction code at arbitrary moment. I think
>> that it isn't reasonable and it doesn't ensure anything. Instead of
>> this approach, how about doing compaction on certain amounts of pageblock
>> for async compaction?
>>
>
> Not a silly question at all, I had the same feeling in
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/21/730 and proposed it to be a tunable that
> indicates how much work we are willing to do for thp in the pagefault
> path.  It suffers from the fact that past failure to isolate and/or
> migrate memory to free an entire pageblock doesn't indicate that the next
> pageblock will fail as well, but there has to be cutoff at some point or
> async compaction becomes unnecessarily expensive.  We can always rely on
> khugepaged later to do the collapse, assuming we're not faulting memory
> and then immediately pinning it.
>
> I think there's two ways to go about it:
>
>   - allow a single thp fault to be expensive and then rely on deferred
>     compaction to avoid subsequent calls in the near future, or
>
>   - try to make all thp faults be as least expensive as possible so that
>     the cumulative effect of faulting large amounts of memory doesn't end
>     up with lengthy stalls.
>
> Both of these are complex because of the potential for concurrent calls to
> memory compaction when faulting thp on several cpus.
>
> I also think the second point from that email still applies, that we
> should abort isolating pages within a pageblock for migration once it can
> no longer allow a cc->order allocation to succeed.

That was the RFC patch 15, I hope to reintroduce it soon. You could 
still test it meanwhile to see if you see the same extfrag regression as 
me. In my tests, kswapd/khugepaged wasn't doing enough work to 
defragment the pageblocks that the stress-highalloc benchmark 
(configured to behave like thp page fault) was skipping.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/